Johnpacklambert

Please add sort keys when you add categories. Right now Category:People from the Holy Roman Empire has a ton of People from FOO child categories that you added but non of them have keys. Right now they'll all sorted under P for people. Thanks! (I do appreciate you adding more parent categories!) Mason (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm having a discussion with an editor you had the same issue with just recently. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you be interested in helping me automatically add more parent categories to the category header templates? I've programmed the category headers to make possible to add parent nationality categories. I'm currently working on the HRE, Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire.

Like right now I have German , Austrian, Luxembourgian, and Bohemian as parts of the HRE from the 10th through 18th century. But I know that you know WAY more about this topic (which countries were controlled by these empires and when). Would you be willing/interested in helping me?

Here's a link to the current template Template:Occupation_by_nationality_and_century_category_header/nationality, and here's a sample of what the code looks like. # Dynamic category assignment for HRE -->| German | Austrian |Luxembourgian|Bohemian =<!-- -->{{#switch: {{{Title_century}}}| 10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18 =<!-- Check for 10 to 18th century

I'd obviously be extremely willing to walk you through the code if you wanted to get into the weeds, but heck, even if you just made a list of which nations I should be looking at, that would be extremely helpful. Mason (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not think we should have a 17th-century Austrian people Category at all. The term is used inconsistently in that time frame. German and Holy Roman Empire are also functional equivalents in that time frame. Bohemian works, although with Bohemia, the Archduchy of Austria and some other territories all being directly ruled by the Habsburgs, movement between them is even more common that within the HRE as a whole. I think we may have some Carniolan categories. The Archduchy of Austria was much smaller than modern Austria. Yet sometimes direct Hansburg territory, especially after 1648 is called "Austria". This is an inconsistent practice though, which is why we have the from the Habsburg monarchy categories. However this territory exists inside and outside the Holy Roman Empire. So does the Kingdom of Prussia. The Ottoman Empire is even more complicating. For example there is never a point where all Greek lands are under it. The Ionian Islands are Venetian until 1797, then French and a few other things, and then from about 1815 the British protectorate of the United Ststes of the Ionian Islands. Back to the HRE, in theory Bavarian, Saxon, Honoverian, Hessian and a few other sub-groups are possible. The terms themselves are very messy, and from Bavaria, from Saxony etc might be better. If paired with a century thry might even go better. I am thinking 18th-century people from Hanover would be clear enough. Saxony I believe you have a Duchy of Saxony and an Rlectorate of Saxony existing at the same time so that is getting too messy. 17th-century people from Brandenburg might work. 18th-century people from Brandenburg would work I believe, unless we really want to use 18th-century people from the Margravate (I hope I spelled it right) of Brandenburg. This would allow us to better connect those people from that part of the Kingdom of Prussia, the main part in the Holy Roman Empire, with the Holy Roman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That said a few things are unclear to me. One is when the Savoyard state stops being part of the Holy Roman Empire. I was under the impression that as of 1848 nothing that would br Italy in 1910 was still in the Holy Roman Empire. The boundaries did however encompass some areas such as the French Comte, that would be in France by 1910. Ineed to see if I can understand this better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Goodness, this is indeed really complicated. Thanks for thinking about this! Do you think it's ok that given that we do have FOOth-century austrian categories that they can be parented by the FOOth-century HRE categories? Mason (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say Austrian should be renamed to x century from the Archduchy of Austria, and anyone actually from Tyrol or other areas beyond what was then the Archduchy of Austria should be removed. Since the Archduchy of Austria was all in the HRE that can be patented. Some people refer to the "Austrian Empire" in the 18th-century to mean the territories of the Habsburg monarchy, which was Austria, Tyrol, Carniola, the Kingdom of Bohemia, Silesia until 1741 or son(under Bohemia), the Kingdom of Hungary (which included was is now Croatia, Slovakia, Transylvania, an area called the Banat which is now a plot between Romania and Serbia, sub-capathian Ruthenia which is now in Ukraine, and I believe an area that is now in Austria). I believe for a time another part of modern Serbia was under Hanbsburg rule but not in Hungary. Where this gets really confusing is the standard statement is that Poland in 1772 was partitioned between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Sometimes stated the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Russian Rmpire. The issue is the Austrian Empire technically is founded in 1804. Austria is one of the major powers of Europe, but it technically is a collection of multiple areas with one ruler, and maybe one government, I am not sure exactly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The Duchy of Savoy is technically part of the Holy Roman Empire until it is taken over by the French Republic in 1792. However Sardinia is not. Aosta I believe technically is, but I am unclear if Piedmont is. The Savoyard State only rules part of modern Piedmont until 1713. It is the part with Turin which is the capital but not all of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This map [File:Holy Roman Empire 1648.svg shows you how complex things are. It also seems to imply that as of 1648 Savoy was no longer in the HRE. Tuscany is evidently out. If this is right we need to take 18th-century Grand Duchy of Tuscany people out of the HRE cat. The Archduchy of Austria is one of 5 or so territories ruled by the Habsburgs that now make Austria. They also rule Bohemia. They also rule some other areas in what is now souther Germany. France also controls some areas surrounded by the HRE, that boundary is messy at this point. That large lump along the Swiss border is a part of France nestled between the HRE and Switzerland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! Mason (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• From the 1520s until the 1790s Flanders is part of the Holy Roman Empire. So 17th and 18th century Flemish categories can go under the Holy Roman Empire. 16th century more than likely. Especially since pre-1526 the area included areas both in the Holy Roman Empire and in France. The County of Flanders pre-1526 is a technical part of France, but de facto had been part of the broader Burgundian Netherlands state for about 200 years. Before that it was essentially an independent polity recognizing the French king as overlord.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Seriously, so helpful! I'll add those to the template. Mason (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Flemish is a messy term. Ay first it meant people who were from the County of Flanders. Today it either means people from the Flamders region, or basically the Dutch or near Dutch speaking inhabitants of Belgium as opposed yo the French speaking Wallond. It is cobfusing more because the County of Flanders was in France until 1526, and some of its areas like Dunkirk became integrally French, but it is the non-French part of Brlgium by language. The cou ty of Flanders was only about the western third 9f modern Flanders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, I agree that flemish is a messy term under the category tree. I set the 16th to be parented by France and HRE, as well as be in 16th-century people by nationality. See Category:16th-century Flemish painters. Mason (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It gets more fun. There is an area called Zeelandic Flanders. It was part of the County of Flanders until 1604. Then it was taken by the Dutch Republic and g8ven to Zeeland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am starting to wonder if princesses and princesses are really a coherent group we can put in 1 Category. It sometimes feels like there are too many similar but not the same types of people being thrown in 1 Category. There are essentially 4 groups of people here. It is not clear that all of then even had the relevant title. Sometimes they are called a prince or princess, but it is not clear that they are. Further there is an unclarity on what this means for any particular Category. The 4 groups are 1-rulers who have the title of Prince or princess. They rule a Principality. Our article on Principality says this "A principality (or sometimes princedom) can either be a monarchical feudatory or a sovereign state, ruled or reigned over by a regnant-monarch with the title of prince and/or princess, or by a monarch with another title considered to fall under the generic meaning of the term prince." So for example the Electorate of Hanover is in the Principality tree. There seem to have been about 50 principalities in the Holy Roman Empire. Despite claims about the levels on ranks, many people who held the title prince had much less territory than some dukes, margraves or counts, and especially after 1848 many rulers in the Holy Roman Empire were de facto princes, whatever their title was. This leads to group 2. Where group 1 is mainly princes, with the rare princess, group 2 is mainly princesses. Here are the wives of ruling princes. There is a whole different set. The term prince and princess are also used for the legitimate children of kings. Sometimes they have a title of prince or princess. At times in England some of these people had titles like Duke of York, Duke of Clarence etc, but they were also a prince. This group is split more of less evenly between men and women. Sometimes this form is used for the children of more or less independent monarchs who are not kings. So the children of a ruling prince end up being princes and princesses. I think you will find this applied to the children of an Emperor, and at least where you have dukes who are basically independent this will come up. There is one more group, which is mainly the wives of the sons of ruling monarchs, but sometimes I believe also the husband's of the daughters of ruling monarchs. Plus there are some uses that do not fit. In England/the United Kingdom the general convention is to style the husband of the ruling queen not king but prince consort. This may apply in other cases as well. Many people are actually prince or princess in multiple ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The above is ban enough. However when we pair country/nationality and prince/princess we get even messier. We have inconsistent names. Like right now there is Category:Princes of the Holy Roman Empire and Princesses in the Holy Roman Empire. I am not even sure we know for sure if French princesses, Princesses from France, Princesses of France and Princesses in France all have the same scope. The biggest issue is If someone was born in the Russian Empire, her title is Princess of X, but this is essentially a noble title with no independence and she is not part of the Royal family, but a distant cousin to the Emperor, she flees the revolution at age 15 in 1918, moves to France where she is called Princess Natalia or Princess Natasha, how do we categorize her? A-do we care more for title or actual role? Does anyone who holds the title princess for in princess categories, so we categorize by title, or do they have to be in some way royal, and we exclude nobles who gave extravagant titles? At the sane time do children of a ruling monarch get placed in prince and princess categories even if thry lack the title? Lastly, do we track residence, or origin of the title? Do we exclude dead titles even of that is what someone is known as? I think the answers are 1-I think until we are more clear we mix basically everyone styled prince or princess, either by convention or actual title. If they hold a recofmgnized title as prince pr Princess or if reliable sources say thry were such, even with a different title we merge them. We should reserve Prince of X and Princess of X for people who held that title. At least in cases where demonyms are not clear and unambiguous, and maybe in cases where thry are we should have Princess in and Prince in. So Princess in the Russian Empire, Princess in the Holy Roman Empire, Princess in the Kingdom of Naples and anything else. The key is what is in is not the person but the title or office. You do not have to be born or reside in the place. However your title or office does need to be legally recognized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am thinking we should exclude royalty from most ancestry categories. Especially pre-1800 European royalty. Thry could trace ancestors all across at least western Europe, but this would not seem to be very relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please wait on making more women nobility categories. The CFD on the topic on the entire tree isn't closed yet. (I appreciate that you added the parent categories you did for Category:Noblewomen of the Kingdom of Hungary, but don't forget to add non-diffusing tags for women categories.) Mason (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am unconvinced these should be none diffusing. We do not make Queens a non-diffusing sub-cat of Queens. Duchesses are not non-diffusing sub-cats of dukes. Countesses are not non-diffusing from counts. Princesses are not non-diffusing from princes. I would argue that noblemen and noblewomen are distinct enough, and the roles differently enough that we can fully diffuse them as we do for other things. Since we have carltrgories for coutesses, Princesses, Duchesne and other groups of noblewomen, my categories are in fact gathering existing categories together. The categories already exist. I will hold off but I think this is a misappropriation of the rules to stop reasonable development of Wikipedia. The proposal is not about deletion, the clear thrust of most editors is they see that noblewomen are a distinct group that needs categorizing. Anyway this is partly a response to you wrong-headed reinsertion of people directly into X nationality women categories, which are container categories and should have no biographies at all. This is actually also a necessary response to that issue. Women should not be directly in X nationality women categories. A huge number of articles we have are on people whose main defining characteristic is being a French noblewoman, a Spanish noblewoman, etc. We should have a category to recognize this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

>The categories already exist. I will hold off but I think this is a misappropriation of the rules to stop reasonable development of Wikipedia.

I appreciate your waiting, as well as your sharing your opinion. I think that the default for gender related categories is to assume that they're diffusing until overwise. I agree with you the for specific titles diffusion is fine, but I think for a generic category, we'd end up ghettozing women nobility while male nobility would remain in the ungendered main category. Mason (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We could just as easily create noblemen and noblewomen categories. Like we do with male actors and actresses. I think this would be far more accurate. A nobleman and a noblewomen historically are almost as different in role as a knight and a lady. Well, since in 1350 basically all noblemen were Knights, and as knight were noble, although there were men-at-arms who were not Knights, the Last Duel is coming to my mind here, more the book than the film with Adam Diver, in 1350 noblemen are essentially Knights and noblewomen are essentially ladies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We could, and is definitely something to think about, but, that's not the state of the categories right now. As of right now, the lack of a diffusion tag would ghettoize noblewomen. Mason (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just realized something. We have Category:Women nobility but it is unclear if this is A-meant yo group biographical articles on specific noblewomen, B-group articles on Duchess, Baroness (which oddly is a refirect), and so on or C- have both. It looks to me like we treat royalty as a sub-cat of nobility, so I would assume Queen (well that is a disambiguation page, Queen of the Romans, Princess and so on would either go here or in a sub-cat. Although at first glance it looks like we have not created that any distinct articles on these topics. So my guess is we can easily rename women nobility to noblewomen and place the few non-bio articles there. The bigger issue is two things. 1-is nobility a concept that really can be group internationally. The Aliʻi of Hawai'i are called "nobles", but are thry really like enough to place directly in a transnational cat if we lack enough individual articles? The other issue is we need to remember we categorize by shared trait not shared name. Are Duchesses different enough from Countesses that it makes sense to have separate categories? Alternately maybe it makes sense to separate noblewomen by rank if we have enough for a given nationality, but the different ranks really only apply in a given system. Maybe English countesses, who are the wives of Earls, really are not enough like French countesses, to make a category called countesses to group them. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This category has 128 sub-categories. It also has 24 direct articles. Several of the sub-cats have less than 5 articles and a few have 2. I am thinking some of the sub-cats may be less than helpful for navigation and some up merging might help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Peerage of England refers to people given noble titles before 1707. So no new people are going to get titles. It is possible there are some people who were nobles then who lack articles and articles will be created on in the future. However we can probably safely analyze what we have now yo determine its reasonableness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here we have a Wikipedia article on João, Prince of Brazil who died at less than 1 month og age.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we should only have categories with titles like "Dukes of Croatia" where there was an actual titles "Dike of Criatia". I think any Cades like "Dukes of the Holy Roman Empire" where this is not the title should be renamed to "Dukes in the Holy Roman Empore". Right now the categories under "Dukes by coultey" have forms Fooian Dukes, Dukes of Foo and Dukes in Foo. I am a little less decided if Fooian Dukes works, bit I think even there Dukes in Foo would be a better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Royalty and nobility are 2 disctinctly different subjects and cannot be inter-categorized under any circumstances - please learn the difference! And when you've learned it I trust you'll stop doing damage like this. The two subjecyts can, as any different subjects, be categorized together ("Royalty and nobility ..."), but not subbed one under another and not equalized in any way. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply